__/ [David Dyer-Bennet] on Monday 17 October 2005 01:49 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I am not entirely sure, but I have enough evidence (based on several
>> sites) to justify posting it:
>>
>> Google Images indices have just been updated, which is rare (updates are
>> several months apart, used to be 5ish). If your site relies on graphics
>> for some of its traffic, expect an improvement. Having said that, all
>> sites expand in terms of graphical content, so if you have not added
>> anything new, you might lag behind.
>
> No change in number of images indexed at the two sites I currently
> track by numbers, but that may simply mean they haven't chosen to pick
> up any of the (numerous) images they don't index at those sites.
There is some level of flexibity, but not much:
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcia.gov+filetype%3Agif&btnG=Search
(apologies about long URL)
Can also restrict by date < http://www.googleguide.com/favorite_dates.html >
, but not in a service that is provided by Google directly nor one that can
be applies to images index. You would be better off making a mental note of
the numbers.
>> I know that my labelled photos (yes, _I_ carefully took them) have
>> led to nearly 200-350 (referall-framed) visits per day. This might
>> be a good SEO aspect, which provides the users what they want (a
>> relevant photo), satisfies Google's infinite thirst for knowledge
>> and may bring back to you some visitors who merely sought a photo,
>> but decided to hang about.
>
> Interesting additional angle on SEO there, actually.
Happy to hear you agree...
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Have you hugged your penguin today?
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:00am up 52 days 14:14, 5 users, load average: 0.74, 0.72, 0.66
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
